Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Wiltshire

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Wiltshire


Five selected Articles and five selected Bios created in 2010. Portal:Wiltshire/Selected biography/2 is the only one ever updated. User-hostile system for nominating pages for addition (via Template:Random portal component with nominate) is partially to blame. Current events shows no headlines. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for nine years, save for one-offs like a picture gallery added in 2018 and one bio update. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had nine years of no steady maintainers and it had an abysmal 6 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Wiltshire had 887 views per day in the same period). Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as nearly a decade of hard evidence shows Wiltshire is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Mark S and analysis by User:Newshunter12. A decade ago, in the early enthusiasm for regional portals, portals were created for most (probably all) of the counties in England.  Some are maintained, but most are failures.  This portal has never had enough articles, enough readers, or reliable maintenance.  There is no short-term reason to expect that a re-creation of this portal will address the problems.  Any proposed re-creation of this portal using a more modern design, and taking into account the failures of many portals, can go to Deletion Review.
 * Delete counties don't needed portals.Catfurball (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and per @Newshunter12. This is yet another a long-abandoned mini-portal, whose selected articles consist of outdated content forks. It should have been deleted long ago.
 * WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This has attracted only trivially small numbers of readers, and no maintainers.
 * I also oppose recreation. We have a decade's evidence that editors don't want to maintain this one. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin. If you close this as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks?  I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal (in this case Portal:England), without creating duplicate entries. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.